THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 


REMARKS 


MR.  BEALE,  OF  VIRGINIA, 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 

,  (f‘  \  , 

DELIVERED  IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  MAY  6,  1852. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state 
of  the  Union,  and  having  under  consideration  the  Home¬ 
stead  Bill — 

Mr.  BEALE  obtained  the  floor,  and  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  wish  to  give  my  opinion  on  this  bill 
particularly,  because  it  involves  vital  political  principles 
that  are  about  to  be  disregarded.  I  can  take  but  a  limited 
view  of  this  subject  in  the  brief  time  allowed  me.  In  this 
debate  the  finger  of  scorn  has  been  pointed  to  a  certain 
class  of  politicians  who  have  been  denominated  Abstrac¬ 
tionists.  Mr.  Madison,  in  his  report  of  1799,  setting  out  the 
true  theory  of  Federal  powers,  and  Mr.  Jefferson,  in  carry¬ 
ing  out  this  theory  in  the  practical  application  of  our  affairs 
during  his  administration,  are  the  prominent  offenders  of 
this  class,  and  to  those  who  would  direct  its  action  to  the 
accomplishment  of  selfish  and  sectional  purposes.  I  belong 
to  the  school  of  1799.  If  the  plain  construction  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  in  the  early  and  best  days  of  the  Republic  is  right 
and  true,  this  bill  is  in  violation  of  such  opinions  and  the 


Printed  at  Congressional  Globe  Office. 


2 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 


practices  growing  out  of  them.  No  one  doubts  the  just 
power  of  this  Government  to  raise  money.  But  any  one  at 
all  conversant  with  constitutional  law,  ought  also  to  know 
that  this  power  does  not  carry  with  it  an  unlimited  discre¬ 
tion  in  the  use  and  application  of  money.  The  objects  to 

✓ 

which  Congress  may  make  a  just  application  of  money,  or 
of  public  property,  are  limited  by  the  specific  grants  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Constitution,  or  to  such  other  incidental  powers 
only  as  are  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  those  grants  into- 
execution.  This  may  all  have  been  done  in  error.  It  is 
barely  possible  that  Congress  ought  to  have  had  the  power 
to  suppress  the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  to  have 
established  a  religion,  &c.,  &c.  But  the  facts  are  otherwise. 
This  Government  is  derivative  in  its  character,  and  has  no 
beneficiary  powers.  That  has  been  reserved  to  the  States 
and  to  the  domestic  circle  untrammeled,  as  it  should  be. 
The  people  and  the  States,  in  the  fundamental  law,  have 
chosen  to  intrust  to  you  that  class  of  power  by  which,  and 
*  by  which  only ,  you  may  work  out  the  public  good.  Can  any 
one  point  out  such  grants  of  power  in  the  Constitution,  or 
such  incidents,  as  would  characterize  this  bill  as  a  neces¬ 
sary  mode  of  procuring  the  public  good  in  conformity  to  the 
fundamental  law?  It  is  scarcely  pretended.  It  is  spoken 
of  as  an  act  of  supreme  beneficence — our  feelings  of  kind¬ 
ness  and  humanity  are  appealed  to — it  is  based  merely 
upon  the  old,  and  I  had  hoped  the  exploded  doctrine  of 
Federalism,  that  we  are  neither  bound  by  the  will  of  our 
constituents  nor  constitutional  limitations,  but  may  legislate 
at  will  for  the  public  welfare.  I  would  ask  Domocrats — who 
will  forgive  this  repetition — have  you  any  means  of  promo¬ 
ting  the  public  welfare,  except  you  confine  your  legislation 
within  the  pale  of  the  Constitution?  Have  not  the  people 
and  the  States  chosen  to  limit  your  action  by  the  primordial 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 


•3 


law?  If  this  is  not  so — if  this  conclusion  is  an  abstraction, 
where,  I  ask,  but  in  your  own  will  and  pleasure,  is  the  limit¬ 
ation  to  the  most  wild,  experimental,  and  chimerical  pro¬ 
jects  of  legislation  ?  Will  gentlemen  be  so  good  as  to  point 
out  what  project  may  not  be  undertaken  and,  therefore, 
justified,  because  of  the  reason  that  it  admits  of  the  applica¬ 
tion  of  money,  or  is  characterized  by  a  lofty  beneficence  ? 
You  have,  therefore,  no  constitutional  power  to  pass  this 
bill. 

You  are  also  restricted  in  the  passage  of  this  bill  by  solemn 
compact.  When  Virginia  and  other  States  ceded  a.  large 
amount  of  those  lands,  it  was  upon  the  clear  and  well-known 
conditions  that  they  were  to  be  used  for  the  express  pur¬ 
pose  of  paying  the  debts  and  defraying  the  general  charges 
and  expenditures  of  this  Government.  Did  you  not  accept 
them  on  those  terms ,  and ,  having  so  accepted  them,  are  you 
not  bound,  in  good  faith,  to  keep  holy  and  untouched  the 
terms  of  the  contract?  But  some  say,  in  answer  to  this  view, 
“Virginia  was  a  party  to  the  contract  of  the  Constitution  of 
1789,  and  by  her  consent  placed  the  public  lands  at  the 
disposal  of  this  Government.”  The  disposal  of  those  lands 
had  been  placed  there  before — there  was  no  change  ex¬ 
pressed  or  contemplated  in  the  transfer  to  the  new  Govern¬ 
ment.  In  proof  of  the  assertion,  there  was  no  change  in  the 
action  of  the  Government  in  this  relation  for  many  years  of 
the  good  time  of  the  Republic.  Those  lands  acquired  by 
purchase,  as  well  as  by  donation,  were  used  for  the  pur¬ 
poses  set  out  in  the  cession  act  of  1784.  You  have,  there¬ 
fore,  the  construction  the  Government  itself  put  upon  this 
matter  for  the  last  forty  years.  We  have  had  advancement 
in  Government  affairs,  but  no  revolution  that  would  abrogate 
previously-existing  contracts  in  relation  to  pecuniary  mat¬ 
ters.  But  suppose  we  had,  what  is  the  practice  of  nations 


4 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 


in  our  own  times  in  regard  to  this  matter?  Did  not  Louis 
Philippe  pay  to  the  United  States  twenty-five  millions  of 
francs  for  captures  made  of  American  property  under  the 
Imperial  Government  of  France  after  several  revolutions? 

Shall  our  Government  feel  itself  less  bound  to  observe  its 

\ 

pecuniary  contracts,  especially  when  it  is  remembered  that 
this  cession  of  lands  by  the  States  at  the  period  when  made 
removed  existing  impediments,  and  greatly  contributed  to 
the  formation  of  the  Union?  Do  not  tell  me  of  precedents 
in  the  bestowal  of  the  public  lands  heretofore;  they  were 
acts  of  a  generous  and  unthinking  beneficence  to  our  own 
people  struggling  with  the  difficulties  of  settlement  in  a  new 
country,  without  a  cautious  reference  to  your  legitimate 
power.  You  may,  for  the  effect  it  would  have  upon  my 
judgment,  as  well  refer  to  the  precedents  of  legislation 
violative  of  the  rights  of  speech  and  the  liberty  of  the  press 
of  a  former  period.  I  disregard  legislative  precedent  when 
opposed  to  what  I  esteem  as  fundamental  political  truth. 
The  very  act,  however,  which  you  are  about  to  perpetrate 
will  probably  be  heralded  as  precedent  hereafter  to  weaken 
the  force  of  constitutional  obligation,  and  to  break  up  this 
noble  fabric  of  constitution  and  law  into  a  convenient 
machinery  to  advance  sectional  and  party  interest,  or  to 
manage  more  efficiently  a  presidential  election. 

The  sole  argument  made  use  of  in  this  debate  to  sustain 
the  constitutionality  of  this  measure,  is  the  mere  assertion, 
that  the  prominent  object  of  the  Government  in  the  acqui¬ 
sition  of  new  territory  was,  to  its  settlement.  That  settlement 
was  a  consequence  foreseen — that  it  was  an  element  enter¬ 
ing  into  and  controlling  to  some  extent  the  idea  of  its  value, 
is  true;  that  its  cultivation,  including  the  building  up  of 
towns  and  cities,  with  a  wide-spread  civilization,  was  an¬ 
ticipated,  is  probable,  and  formed,  if  you  choose,  a  laud- 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 


5 


able  motive  for  action.  But  are  we  not  brought  back  to  the 
inquiry,  Does  the  object  to  be  attained  justify  you  in  this 
description  of  means  for  its  accomplishment?  And  does  not 
the  history  of  both  the  transfer  and  acquisition  by  purchase 
of  those  lands,  give  a  very  different,  but  the  true  view  of 
the  object  intended  by  the  Government?  The  Conventional 
Government  required  of  the  States  the  donations  that  were 
made.  Could,  I  ask,  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Con¬ 
stitution  have  intended  to  violate  the  terms  of  the  contract 
so  recently  made  with  the  States?  Were  not  those  trans¬ 
fers  made  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  money  for  the  uses 
of  the  Central  Government  at  a  period  of  great  financial 
difficulty?  And  were  not  those  acquired  by  purchase  used 
and  disposed  of  for  the  identical  purposes,  to  wit,  to  pay 
the  debts  and  defray  the  general  charges  and  expenditures 
of  the  Government? 

The  advocates  of  this  bill  appear  to  admit  that  the  dona¬ 
ted  lands  were  subject  to  sale  for  the  purposes  of  revenue ; 
but  their  argument  based  upon  settlement  is  clearly  predica¬ 
ted  upon  the  presumption  that  the  Government  by  the  act 
oi'  purchase  of  new  territory  had  also  acquired  new  and 
additional  powers  in  the  disposition  of  those  lands ;  which 
is  preposterous ;  because  if  additional  powers  can  be  obtained 
in  this  way,  then  time  and  a  peculiar  action  may  work  an 
obliteration  of  all  constitutional  limitations. 

If  this  is  fancy  and  not  fact,  why,  then,  you  can  not  only 
give  them  away,  as  you  now  contemplate,  but  you  can  also 
hire  men  out  of  the  moneys  of  the  Treasury,  both  to  settle 
and  to  cultivate  those  lands;  which  is  not  pretended.  The 
argument  based  upon  settlement  proves  too  much,  and 
therefore  is  fallacious. 

But  suppose  those  barriers  to  the  passage  of  this  bill 
were  removed,  then,  is  it  wise  and  prudent?  Is  it  in  con- 


6 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 


formity  to  the  plan  of  our  ancestors  to  advance  the  best 
interests  of  man?  Is  not  the  scheme  of  protecting  the  life 
liberty,  and  property  of  men  sufficient  of  itself?  Let  the 
successful  advancement  in  this  country  of  all  that  constitutes 
national  greatness  and  individual  happiness,  Answer  this 
question.  Can  gentlemen  show  an  instance  in  the  long 
history  of  our  race,  when  governmental  bounties  were  ever 
bestowed,  except  in  the  most  corrupt  times,  and  for  most 
corrupt  purposes  ?  Bounties  and  despotism  are  near  of  kin 
to  each  other.  Your  system  of  pensions,  running  into  sine¬ 
cures  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  flogging  and  ball-chaining  in 
the  Navy  on  the  other,  are  weak  imitations  of  European 
policy,  that  are  hostile  alike  to  the  genius  of  our  institutions 
and  the  sentiments  of  our  people.  Let  us  keep  clear  of 
both.  Let  us  leave  men  to  pursue  their  own  good  in  their 
own  way.  God  has  implanted  in  the  heart  of  man  a  self- 
love  that  impels  him  with  sufficient  speed,  and  needs  not 
governmental  propulsion.  Let  us  make  clear  his  way,  and 
take  care  only  that  he  does  not  run  foul  of  the  rights  of 
others.  This  is  as  much,  and  perhaps  more  than  govern¬ 
ment  has  effected  anywhere  or  at  any  time.  Beware  of 
bounties.  It  destroys  that  energy  of  character  and  intrepid 
perseverance  which  has  spread  a  high  civilization  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  and  which  the  drones  of  gifts 
and  benevolences  could  never  have  effected. 

What  Democrat  can  go  for  this  bill,  when  the  argument 
in  its  support  assumes  as  a  government  duty  to  interfere 
and  direct  labor,  skill,  and  capital,  by  holding  the  temp¬ 
tation  of  bounties  to  a  free  people,  and  controlling  labor  by 
legislative  bribe?  Men  manage  their  own  affairs  better 
than  government  can  do  it  for  them.  To  be  let  alone  is  in 
most  instances  a  great  blessing  of  political  libert}r.  The 
peculiar  condition  of  things  in  this  country  will,  by  the  law 

* 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL, 


7 


of  demand  and  supply,  direct  the  labor  and  pursuits  of 
community  in  the  best  possible  manner. 

Will  you,  at  the  expense  of  the  rights  of  the  sovereignty 
and  dignity  of  the  State  governments,  induce  the  people  ol 
the  United  States  to  look  up  to  this  Federal  Government  as 
the  only  and  sole  dispensers  of  gifts  and  of  bounties, 
indeed,  the  great  beneficiary  of  the  people,  to  the  discredit 
and  disrepute  of  their  State  governments,  who  have  less 
means  to  bribe  with  so  lavish  a  hand? 

Again :  as  the  public  land  belongs  to  all  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  does  not  your  bill  violate  all  ideas  of  equal¬ 
ity,  and  therefore  of  justice,  in  bestowing  it  in  such  a  manner 
that  its  benefits  will  only  accrue  to  a  part  of  the  people  ? 

Have  you  not,  by  the  act  of  1846,  pledged  the  moneys 
arising  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands  for  the  redemption 
of  the  principal  and  payment  of  the  interest  of  some  forty 
millions  of  dollars  expended  in  prosecuting  the  Mexican  war  ? 
And  does  not  this  bill,  if  it  pass  into  law,  violate  that  solemn 
and  voluntary  pledge,  so  recently  made  ? 

Suppose  so  improbable  a  suggestion  as  that  the  Repre¬ 
sentatives  of  the  manufacturing  States  should  favor  the 
passage  of  this  bill,  for  the  reason,  that  if  you  withhold  the 
means  by  which  money  will  be  placed  into  the  public  Treas¬ 
ury  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  you  thereby  induce  the 
necessity,  in  case  of  emergency,  of  causing  an  increase  of 
duty  on  foreign  importations  by  which  the  interest  of  your 
own  peculiar  labor  is  advanced.  But  suppose  this  effect 
were  to  follow,  will  it  not  operate  in  another  point  of  view 
greatly  to  your  injury?  Why  are  the  people  of  the  North¬ 
east  engaged  in  manufactures?  Because  they  occupy  a 
sterile  soil,  a  rigid  climate,  a  dense  population,  cheap  labor, 
and  have  acquired  an  excess  of  capital.  Why  are  those  of 
the  South,  the  Southwest,  and  the  Northwest  consumers  of 


8 


THE  HOMESTEAD  BILL. 


the  products  of  your  ingenuity?  For  causes  precisely  the 
reverse — a  rich  virgin  soil,  a  bland  and  genial  climate,  a 
sparse  population,  high  price  of  labor,  with  less  pecuniary 
means.  Do  you  not  hasten  a  condition  of  things  in  the  West 
that  will  change  the  relations  at  present  existing,  much  to 
your  disadvantage?  How  long  will  the  people  of  the  West 
pay  transportation  and  profits  on  articles  that  they  will  make 
then  as  cheaply  as  you  do  now? 

A  strong  objection  may  be  made  to  this  bill  from  its  pecu¬ 
niary  consequences.  When  those  lands  are  given  away, 
no  dollar  can  come  into  your  Treasury  from  that  source. 
You  will  then  have  to  look  to  other  means  of  revenue  to 
sustain  the  cost  of  the  system  incurred  by  surveys,  registers’ 
offices,  General  Land  Office  at  this  place,  together  with  the 
payment  of  Indian  annuities  already  amounting  to  many 
millions  incident  to  the  purchase  of  those  lands. 

Gentlemen  may  think  it  patriotic  if  they  advance  the 
interest  of  their  particular  State  or  district.  This  may  be 
so.  But  to  have  a  regard  to  equality  of  rights,  to  justice, 
to  constitutional  obligation,  constitutes,  in  my  opinion,  a  . 
much  better,  and  the  American  definition  of  that  term. 


